If you find preference flows confusing, you're not alone. It's hard to work out exactly where your vote might go if you vote above the line, which is why some helpful software developers came up with belowtheline.org.au which allows you to compare party's preference flows, and pre-order your votes below the line so you can print it out and copy it on the day.

This allows us to see which groups of parties are preferencing each other more, as it places parties that preference each other higher up closer together, resulting in clusters.

Nick Sewell, a developer from Sydney, has helpfully updated the approach with the new preference flows for the 2014 WA Senate election. The Nationals and Liberals have been combined into a single Coalition entity.

Here's how they compare (click to embiggen):

And here's an interactive version of each year – which doesn't have a static layout, but might be easier to compare distance (click on a circle to arrange connecting parties in preference order):

Some conglomerates of micro-parties remain similar, with Sports, Shooters and Fishers, and Motoring Enthusiasts still strongly aligned.

It seems the Sex party and Secular party have cosied up this year, with the Sex party now putting the Secular party ahead of anyone else, compared with last year's position behind four other parties.

The Coalition placement is around the Australian Christians, which are preferenced highly by the Liberals and Nationals, Family First, Fishing and Lifestyle, and the Palmer United party (PUP). There's a bit more distance between the Coalition and the PUP this year because the PUP has dropped down the list of National preferences.

Landauer said his attempt to visualise preference flows was to increase transparency around the process.

"My opinion is that the whole group vote tickets and the party preferencing stuff is completely and utterly broken," he said.

"This is basically meant to show up what it really means when you vote above the line for one party. And it shows relationships between parties that you wouldn't necessarily imagine."